On 09 Jul 2012, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/9/2012 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> How do you derive fermions and bosons from comp?
I don't know how to derive fermions and bosons from nothing but
arithmetic but you can do the next best thing. If the Schrodinger
wave function for a particle is a odd function, that is F(x) = -F(-
x), then it's a fermion and the probability of 2 fermions occupying
the same quantum state is zero, in other words it obeys the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and is the reason that the ground beneath your
feet, which is made of fermions, is solid and you don't sink to the
center of the Earth.
If the Schrodinger wave function for a particle is a even function,
that is F(x) = F(-x), then it's a boson and it can ignore the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and is the reason light rays, made of bosons,
don't scramble each other when they collide at right angles, light
particles can occupy the same quantum state and thus can pass
through each other and be completely unaffected; it's the reason
the light rays that enter our eye are not a hopeless chaotic jumble
of information randomized by a astronomical large number of
collisions with other photons.
Yes, that is what I was alluding to by mentionning "à-la-Feynman", as
this is well explaiend in his famous lecture notes on physics, notably
the one on quantum mechanics.
Yep, I knew that. I thought for a moment that Bruno claimed to
derive something like that from comp, but it turns out that all he
claims is that if comp is the theory-of-eveything then it must
predict everything.
Nowhere is Comp assumed to be the theory of everything. It is just the
assumption that "I" am a digital machine (mechanism), to put it shortly.
Then we derive from that assumption that arithmetic is a theory of
everything, as good as any other (basically a first order
specification of a Turing universal system), and then the derivation
is constructive.
It is quite different from what you say.
You did understood the seven steps (not clear for the step 8), but now
you seem to have forgotten the points, or even the goal.
The goal is not to replace physics as a science, but to get a correct
picture of the possible reality, and the possible fundamental science,
once we assume computationalism without putting first person and
consciousness under the carpet.
Main result: Aristotle theology can't work. Plato's theology still work.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
